(04-10-2014 03:27 PM)xieulong Wrote: You just answered your own question. They gave it a new book to read. They gave it a medical database and gave it formulas to process said database. It's is still doing what people programmed it to do. How is it an intellect?

Its an intellect because it satisfies the definition of an intellect. An intellect has the faculty to reason and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters. It could not win at Jeopardy without this faculty.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.

You have a fucking sample size of 1. One.
And the one you have does not meet anyone's definition of what you are claiming it is.

Ya his sample size being one was pointed out to him a while ago. Didn't dent his delusions at all.

I'm kind of glad he posted this (crap) here. More and more it's clear he has a desperate need to "appear" to be *an intellectual*, while lacking even basic equipment. His spelling and grammar errors I've always felt were indicative of something "screwy". I mean he's not even really a religionist. No Christian goes around calling women fat etc. He's a fraud. He needs to tell himself he can play with the big kids.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(04-10-2014 08:52 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote: Ya his sample size being one was pointed out to him a while ago. Didn't dent his delusions at all.

I'm kind of glad he posted this (crap) here. More and more it's clear he has a desperate need to "appear" to be *an intellectual*, while lacking even basic equipment. His spelling and grammar errors I've always felt were indicative of something "screwy". I mean he's not even really a religionist. No Christian goes around calling women fat etc. He's a fraud.

Even with his abhorant behavior here I'm sure he has many good qualities, everyone does even the worst of the worst, but intelligent and honest are not too of them.

Maybe he gives fantastic hand jobs or something, I don't know, but ya....he is stone cold stupid and dishonest as well.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.

Bullhocky. We've not existed long enough to have experienced the emergence of life, nor the conditions that would favor such. Your suggestion is as ludicrous as it is uninformed, we cannot have experienced the start of life naturally, as you are suggesting would have been necessary to determine that such a thing can happen. We have also never truly created life in a lab, only toyed around with the DNA of bacteria (as per your wiki article), so your footing is also weak on that point. Seems you've run out of things to stand on, but that's typical of creationists (which is all "intelligent design" is).

You lot always go about things completely backwards, starting with your desired conclusion and then trying to see what piss-poor arguments and "evidence" you can piece together to "prove" it. If the evidence even began to favor your position you wouldn't have to stoop to such desperate arguments as this...

(04-10-2014 02:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: This is, more or less, the only argument he has ever pushed. He starts with the conclusion he wants (His God done it) and works his way backwards from there. You can tell when he runs out of ideas because he then just jumps straight to word games that amount to nothing.

Exactly. If he did not already believe god created everything this scientific finding would have been as innocuous to him as it is to most people because the findings in no way lead to a world creating intelligence unless you already bloody well believe that.

He has a conclusion and is working backwards, distorting any evidence he has to to maintain his silly little delusion. He is leading the evidence instead of letting the evidence lead him. It's fucking childish and tedious.

Leading the evidence or interpreting data only to support your own conclusions are illogical and rather debate-free.
Most people here know these things.

(04-10-2014 07:29 PM)Rahn127 Wrote: Watson balances a word equation.
It does not think. It only reacts to information and searches data bases for other relevant information.
It displays that gathered information in the way it is programmed to.

It does all of this very quickly
If it took Watson a month to answer one question, would it still be remarkable? It's performing the same task and giving the exact same answer and yet taking a month to do it seems less impressive

Watson gives the illusion of a mind because it gathers and processes subtle information in the form of language cues that humans can process in mere seconds.

The mimicry of solving an equation, of solving what is being asked and what answers best represent a balance to that question is not intellect.

It's just good programming

I do wonder at what point 'programming' and 'simulation' would slip over the line into actual intelligence... and if we'd recognize it if it did.
I'm pretty sure any such intelligence can't be like Watson. It would need multiple senses and an ability to in some way explore the world. Though perhaps an AI attached to the net...
Anyway, not agreeing with Heywood at all.

(04-10-2014 05:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Its an intellect because it satisfies the definition of an intellect. An intellect has the faculty to reason and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters. It could not win at Jeopardy without this faculty.

If you aren't familiar with the phrase "fractally wrong" I suggest you look into it. The above statement is a prime example of simply being wrong at every level.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP

(04-10-2014 02:25 PM)Revenant77x Wrote: This is, more or less, the only argument he has ever pushed. He starts with the conclusion he wants (His God done it) and works his way backwards from there. You can tell when he runs out of ideas because he then just jumps straight to word games that amount to nothing.

Exactly. If he did not already believe god created everything this scientific finding would have been as innocuous to him as it is to most people because the findings in no way lead to a world creating intelligence unless you already bloody well believe that.

He has a conclusion and is working backwards, distorting any evidence he has to to maintain his silly little delusion. He is leading the evidence instead of letting the evidence lead him. It's fucking childish and tedious.

there's nothing wrong with starting with ta conclusion so long as you fix the conclusion or get rid of it according to what the evidence says about it whether you like it or not

(04-10-2014 08:44 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote: Exactly. If he did not already believe god created everything this scientific finding would have been as innocuous to him as it is to most people because the findings in no way lead to a world creating intelligence unless you already bloody well believe that.

He has a conclusion and is working backwards, distorting any evidence he has to to maintain his silly little delusion. He is leading the evidence instead of letting the evidence lead him. It's fucking childish and tedious.

there's nothing wrong with starting with ta conclusion so long as you fix the conclusion or get rid of it according to what the evidence says about it whether you like it or not

That is sort of what a hypothesis is.

It is also the starting point for a reductio ad absurdum proof.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.